Child Born From Second Wife Of A Deceased Employee Eligible For Compassionate Appointment: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court (Jodhpur Bench) has observed that a child who was born from the second wife of the deceased employee is eligible for a compassionate appointment.

To arrive at the conclusion, the bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Kuldeep Mathur relied upon the Supreme Court's recent ruling in the case of Mukesh Kumar vs Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 205 wherein it was observed that a compassionate appointment policy cannot discriminate against a person only on the ground of descent by classifying children of the deceased employee as legitimate and illegitimate.

The case before the Court

The Court observed thus while dealing with an intra-court appeal filed by one Hemendra Puri challenging a single judge order rejecting the writ petition filed by him seeking compassionate appointment in the Jai Narayan Vyas University in lieu of his deceased father.

Essentially, the appellant's father died while working as a 'Tabla Vadak' with the Jai Narayan Vyas University in December 2004. The appellant and respondent No.4 (born through the second wife of the deceased) applied for an appointment on compassionate grounds.

The respondent university considered both applications keeping in view the provisions of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 and August 2005, and extended compassionate appointment in favor of respondent No.4.

Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a writ petition which came to be dismissed in April 2018. Hence, this special appeal was filed arguing that the second marriage of the deceased employee with the mother of Respondent 4, was doubtful and therefore, the compassionate appointment could not have been offered to him.

It was also argued the appellant was fully eligible and entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment in place of a deceased employee, however, illegally ignoring his right of claiming compassionate appointment, respondent No.4 had been appointed.

High Court's observations 

At the outset, the Court, referring to the Supreme Court's recent ruling in the case of Mukesh Kumar (supra), noted that a policy for compassionate appointment, which has the force of law, must not discriminate on any of the grounds mentioned in Article 16(2), including that of descent.

Further, the Court also took note of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996, to conclude that the application submitted by respondent No.4 seeking compassionate appointment could not have been rejected by the respondent university solely on the ground of him being child from the second wife.

"The Head of the Department as per Rule 10(2) of the Rules of 1996 is competent to decide the applications for compassionate appointment keeping in view the overall interest and welfare of the family if more than one of the dependents claim employment on compassionate grounds. In view of the facts noted above, we are of the firm view that the competent authority i.e. the Head of the Department had rightly considered the application submitted to be compliant with the Rules of 1996 and issued an offer of appointment in his favor," the Court further remarked as it upheld the order of the single judge.

Consequently, the special appeal stood dismissed being devoid of merit. 

Case title - Hemendra Puri v. The Jai Narayan Vyas University and others [D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1565/2018]

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 256

Click Here To Read/Download Order